PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Eliminate the Income Tax


Taco John
01-26-2010, 01:33 PM
The Case Against the Income Tax
By Ron Paul
May 7, 2001

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

wild1
01-26-2010, 01:41 PM
How would politicians keep themselves in power, without buying votes through giveaways and creating reliable party voters dependent on government to survive?

Garcia Bronco
01-26-2010, 01:42 PM
I agree. repeal the 16th Amendment.

Brock
01-26-2010, 01:44 PM
Control.

KC native
01-26-2010, 01:45 PM
Let's move to Somalia: A libertarian's dream country
By
Ron Paul.

ROFL

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 01:51 PM
I'm no fan of taxes, but I am under no delusion that we could have a 4-branch military, roads, justice system, prison system (for violent offenders), social security, unemployment insurance, science research, medicare for seniors, police and fire fighters etc., etc., without them. They are a necessary evil for an advanced country such as ours.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 01:58 PM
The Case Against the Income Tax
By Ron Paul
May 7, 2001

Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.


Yeah, it's not 2001, there hasn't been any "tax surpluses" for nearly a decade now, and one of our biggest problems is the deficit.

I'm fine with tax reform, but eliminating hte income tax isn't exactly feasible at the moment.

He's also wrong that there was no income tax durign the first 126 years of the Republic. There was an income tax in both North and South during the Civil War. Not sure when/how it was repealed, or declared (un)Constitutional during that timeframe, however.

Brock
01-26-2010, 01:59 PM
They can keep the income tax. Just make everybody scratch out a check on April 15. No withholding.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 02:02 PM
I'm no fan of taxes, but I am under no delusion that we could have a 4-branch military, roads, justice system, prison system (for violent offenders), social security, unemployment insurance, science research, medicare for seniors, police and fire fighters etc., etc., without them. They are a necessary evil for an advanced country such as ours.

There's a lot of stuff on this list that the federal government shouldn't be involved in. Also If the federal government funds police and fire fighters, that's news to me. That seems like a stupid and wasteful way to fund such services.

Chocolate Hog
01-26-2010, 02:03 PM
Lets abolish the fed first.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 02:06 PM
There's a lot of stuff on this list that the federal government shouldn't be involved in. Also If the federal government funds police and fire fighters, that's news to me. That seems like a stupid and wasteful way to fund such services.

Police and Fire Departments depend on money from Homeland Security. Alot of police deparments are hurting for money and cutting back their force.

Iowanian
01-26-2010, 02:16 PM
They can keep the income tax. Just make everybody scratch out a check on April 15. No withholding.


People don't know how pissed off they would actually be about federal taxes until they write that check. The 15th of each month is the worst day of every month of the year, pisses me off every time.

KC native
01-26-2010, 02:25 PM
People don't know how pissed off they would actually be about federal taxes until they write that check. The 15th of each month is the worst day of every month of the year, pisses me off every time.

I have a question for you. Is it fun to follow me around the bb and neg rep me for no reason? I'm honestly curious. You rep me at twice the rate that anyone else does. It seems as though you have a certain stalker-like obsession with my posts. Are you trying to say you want to come out of the closet?

Garcia Bronco
01-26-2010, 02:32 PM
There's a lot of stuff on this list that the federal government shouldn't be involved in. Also If the federal government funds police and fire fighters, that's news to me. That seems like a stupid and wasteful way to fund such services.

The liberals always bring that up forgetting that most FDP are volunteer and they aren't funded by the feds.

orange
01-26-2010, 02:35 PM
Yeah, it's not 2001, there hasn't been any "tax surpluses" for nearly a decade now, and one of our biggest problems is the deficit.

I'm fine with tax reform, but eliminating hte income tax isn't exactly feasible at the moment.

He's also wrong that there was no income tax durign the first 126 years of the Republic. There was an income tax in both North and South during the Civil War. Not sure when/how it was repealed, or declared (un)Constitutional during that timeframe, however.

Income tax was never declared unconstitutional, either.

I can't believe a serious presidential candidate would make such glaring mistakes in print. But it's Ron Paul pandering, not a serious presidential candidate.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 02:35 PM
The liberals always bring that up forgetting that most FDP are volunteer and they aren't funded by the feds.

Bullshit. Every city in the country has a fully paid fire dept. They might not be Federally funded, but they are paid for through local taxes. There are volunteer fire fighters, but those are mostly in rural areas.

Garcia Bronco
01-26-2010, 02:40 PM
Bullshit. Every city in the country has a fully paid fire dept. They might not be Federally funded, but they are paid for through local taxes. There are volunteer fire fighters, but those are mostly in rural areas.
There are more rural FDP's than cities.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 02:43 PM
There are more rural FDP's than cities.

I guarantee the number paid firefighters vastly outnumbers the number of volunteer firefighters.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 02:45 PM
Rural Fire Departments also get money from the Feds via Grants

mlyonsd
01-26-2010, 02:48 PM
Rural Fire Departments also get money from the Feds via Grants

Which is absurd if you think about it.

Donger
01-26-2010, 02:49 PM
I guarantee the number paid firefighters vastly outnumbers the number of volunteer firefighters.

It seems you are vastly wrong:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm

chris
01-26-2010, 02:50 PM
How would politicians keep themselves in power, without buying votes through giveaways and creating reliable party voters dependent on government to survive?


Well stated!!!

Inspector
01-26-2010, 02:52 PM
People don't know how pissed off they would actually be about federal taxes until they write that check. The 15th of each month is the worst day of every month of the year, pisses me off every time.

One of my kids owns a HVAC company and he made a good suggestion. He said that if everyone had to write out a check each week or month and send it in to the IRS instead of it coming out of your check before you see it, a lot more people would be protesting the incredibly high rate of taxation we now endure. I can see his point.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 02:52 PM
It seems you are vastly wrong:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm

I stand corrected. I wonder what the difference is in paid firefighters vs. volunteer firefighters considering the paid firefighters protect more of the population.

14% of all departments are career or mostly career and protect 61% of the U.S. population
86% of fire departments are volunteer or mostly volunteer and protect 39% of the population

orange
01-26-2010, 02:54 PM
It seems you are vastly wrong:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm

That's the number of Fire Departments, not the number of actual firefighters.

These lines are important:

14% of all departments are career or mostly career and protect 61% of the U.S. population
86% of fire departments are volunteer or mostly volunteer and protect 39% of the population

Obviously, the career departments are much bigger as a rule.

....

Not that it really matters. Even in the 100% volunteer departments (if there are any), the firefighters don't provide their own gear, trucks, etc. Govt. does. Even many of the volunteers receive some part-time pay.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 02:55 PM
It seems you are vastly wrong:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm

http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0060-0807-1215-1128_A_Home_Run_Hit_Out_of_the_Park_clipart_image.jpg

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 02:56 PM
That's the number of Fire Departments, not the number of actual firefighters.

These lines are important:

14% of all departments are career or mostly career and protect 61% of the U.S. population
86% of fire departments are volunteer or mostly volunteer and protect 39% of the population

Obviously, the career departments are much bigger as a rule.

....

Not that it really matters. Even in the 100% volunteer departments (if there are any), the firefighters don't provide their own gear, trucks, etc. Govt. does. Even many of the volunteers receive some part-time pay.

Good point.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 02:56 PM
That's the number of Fire Departments, not the number of actual firefighters.

These lines are important:

14% of all departments are career or mostly career and protect 61% of the U.S. population
86% of fire departments are volunteer or mostly volunteer and protect 39% of the population

Obviously, the career departments are much bigger as a rule.

....

Not that it really matters. Even in the 100% volunteer departments (if there are any), the firefighters don't provide their own gear, trucks, etc. Govt. does. Even many of the volunteers receive some part-time pay.


You guys are conflating "federal income taxes" with "local taxes."

morphius
01-26-2010, 02:57 PM
I guarantee the number paid firefighters vastly outnumbers the number of volunteer firefighters.
There is no greater, longer-running expression of volunteerism in U.S. history than the volunteer fire service, which still saves taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Almost three-fourths of the nation's 1.1. million firefighters are volunteers, and two-thirds of all fire departments are volunteer.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-06-volunteer-firefighters_x.htm

Sure it is from 2005, but I doubt the numbers have flipped that much in 5 years.

Dayze
01-26-2010, 02:59 PM
my nephew is degreed in Fire Science; cert EMT and first responder; has been a volunteer at a rural FD roever; finally took a gig at more of a county-level fd in JoCo; he's basically been workign at this new place for a year at no pay. But was told that "if" and position opens up, it's in his interests to already have a proven track record at that particular department.

He drives the truck, enters homes etc; does everything a normal FF would do but for no pay. He's been doing the FF thing for 2.5 years at no pay. applied all over; some places/cities he's applying for the 3rd time.

Needless to say, he's becoming more and more frustrated.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 02:59 PM
Income tax was never declared unconstitutional, either.

I can't believe a serious presidential candidate would make such glaring mistakes in print. But it's Ron Paul pandering, not a serious presidential candidate.



I'm not saying "You're a liar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.)" I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say that you are just "ignorant of the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.). It's not like they teach this stuff in public school or anything.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 03:00 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-06-volunteer-firefighters_x.htm

Sure it is from 2005, but I doubt the numbers have flipped that much in 5 years.

Yes, I admitted I was incorrect.

morphius
01-26-2010, 03:02 PM
Yeah, it's not 2001, there hasn't been any "tax surpluses" for nearly a decade now, and one of our biggest problems is the deficit.

I'm fine with tax reform, but eliminating hte income tax isn't exactly feasible at the moment.

He's also wrong that there was no income tax durign the first 126 years of the Republic. There was an income tax in both North and South during the Civil War. Not sure when/how it was repealed, or declared (un)Constitutional during that timeframe, however.
I'd personally rather see them go to a tax system based on sales tax instead, but that would put most of the IRS, tax lawyers, tax software makers, etc out of business.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 03:02 PM
I'd personally rather see them go to a tax system based on sales tax instead, but that would put most of the IRS, tax lawyers, tax software makers, etc out of business.

I deleted my post, as the newly posted facts established the ratio of volunteer to paid firefighters.

morphius
01-26-2010, 03:03 PM
Yes, I admitted I was incorrect.
Yeah, I was slow on the post, sorry about that. Another case of work getting in the way of researching and posting, lol.

Donger
01-26-2010, 03:03 PM
That's the number of Fire Departments, not the number of actual firefighters.

These lines are important:

14% of all departments are career or mostly career and protect 61% of the U.S. population
86% of fire departments are volunteer or mostly volunteer and protect 39% of the population

Obviously, the career departments are much bigger as a rule.

....

Not that it really matters. Even in the 100% volunteer departments (if there are any), the firefighters don't provide their own gear, trucks, etc. Govt. does. Even many of the volunteers receive some part-time pay.

Sorry, work intruded while I was about to post this, too:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/firefighters/index.shtm

Volunteer firefighters include any active part-time (call or volunteer) firefighters. Active volunteers are defined as being involved in firefighting.

* Estimated number of firefighters in 2008: 1,148,850 (career: 321,700, volunteer: 827,150)

* Firefighters by age group: 16-19 (4%), 20-29 (25%), 30-39 (26%), 40-49 (24%), 50-59 (15%), 60 and over (6%)

* Seventy-four percent of career firefighters are in communities that protect a population of 25,000 or more.

* Ninety-four percent of the volunteers are in departments that protect a population of less than 25,000 and more than 50% are located in small, rural departments that protect a population of less than 2,500.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 03:04 PM
I'd personally rather see them go to a tax system based on sales tax instead, but that would put most of the IRS, tax lawyers, tax software makers, etc out of business.

A consumption tax. If it could fund everything we need without fucking the little guy in the ass (to put it bluntly), I might be for it.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 03:04 PM
I'd agree on one thing -- why are the feds funding police/fire at all. That should be a purely local expenditure. Of course, the same could be said for a number of other constituent interest groups (teachers, etc.)

Taco John
01-26-2010, 03:05 PM
I'd agree on one thing -- why are the feds funding police/fire at all. That should be a purely local expenditure. Of course, the same could be said for a number of other constituent interest groups (teachers, etc.)

Yes, quite a number.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 03:06 PM
Yeah, I was slow on the post, sorry about that. Another case of work getting in the way of researching and posting, lol.

Heh no prob.

Garcia Bronco
01-26-2010, 03:06 PM
Rural Fire Departments also get money from the Feds via Grants

If they win the grant. Money typically comes from their county or community.

orange
01-26-2010, 03:08 PM
I'm not saying "You're a liar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.)" I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say that you are just "ignorant of the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.). It's not like they teach this stuff in public school or anything.

In 1895, when the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out an income-tax law in Pollock v. Farmersí Loan & Trust Co., the champions of income taxation in America suffered a big setback. To reiterate what I said in part two of this series, the Court, contrary to what many people think, did not rule income taxation per se unconstitutional. Quite the opposite. All it did was rule that taxation of income from property had to be apportioned among the states. The reason is that it regarded a tax on such income as equivalent to a tax on the property itself. Since a tax on property was regarded as a direct tax, and the Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned according to the census, no such tax could stand without an apportionment clause. Since that clause was lacking in the 1894 tax bill passed by Congress, the Court struck it down. It also struck down the provisions taxing wages and salaries, but only because it believed that putting the full tax burden on workers would violate Congressís intent to have a broad-based tax.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0610b.asp


You clearly do not know what the fuck you're talking about.

Donger
01-26-2010, 03:11 PM
I'd agree on one thing -- why are the feds funding police/fire at all. That should be a purely local expenditure. Of course, the same could be said for a number of other constituent interest groups (teachers, etc.)

Federal funding for local departments (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200009/ai_n8906941/)

morphius
01-26-2010, 03:13 PM
A consumption tax. If it could fund everything we need without fucking the little guy in the ass (to put it bluntly), I might be for it.
Well, if they keep their hands off of food, especially the basics of meat, veg's, milk, cheese... it should be able to be done.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 03:13 PM
I'd agree on one thing -- why are the feds funding police/fire at all. That should be a purely local expenditure. Of course, the same could be said for a number of other constituent interest groups (teachers, etc.)

There are a lot of legitimate federal law enforcement agencies. FBI, CIA, Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marshals, Drug Enforcement agents, etc.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 03:15 PM
It also struck down the provisions taxing wages and salaries, but only because it believed that putting the full tax burden on workers would violate Congress’s intent to have a broad-based tax.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0610b.asp[/I]


In other words: unconstitutional. And wouldn't you know it, it wasn't until 20 years later when they finally added the 16th Amendment before they were able to overturn the decision.

orange
01-26-2010, 03:15 PM
I'm not saying "You're a liar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.)" I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say that you are just "ignorant of the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.). It's not like they teach this stuff in public school or anything.

More detailed illustration of your - and your Messiah's - ignorance:

Beware Income-Tax Casuistry, Part 2
by Sheldon Richman, Posted December 20, 2006


The United States got its first income tax during the War Between the States, again demonstrating that war harms ordinary people in more ways than militarily. During any war government becomes an especially voracious consumer of the people’s resources and dissent is stifled or suppressed. So it is no surprise that the first income tax came when it did, or that Abraham Lincoln, a devotee of mercantilism, was the father of the tax.

Several successive wartime bills enacting progressive income taxes were passed by Congress, and when the war ended, the income tax did not. Changes to the law got rid of the progressive rate structure, but the tax continued. A flat rate of 5 percent was levied on incomes over $1,000. The tax, however, was set to expire in 1870. Out of a population of 39.5 million, no more than 250,000 people paid it. But it would not end in 1870. The pro-income-tax forces rallied, and Congress passed a 2.5 percent tax with a $2,000 exemption. Then, two years later, that tax was allowed to expire. For the first time since the war, (wealthy) Americans did not see their incomes taxed.

The big budget surplus was a major reason the tax was permitted to die. Meanwhile, the pro-tax lobby kept at work, prompting the introduction of 68 bills from 1874 to 1894. A big selling point for populists was that the income tax would permit large reductions in tariffs, which harmed working people for the benefit of wealthy manufacturers. Their wish to relieve workers of the burden of protectionism was admirable, but their strategy was flawed. Eventually, Americans would have an income tax and high tariffs. There’s a lesson in that for all would-be tax reformers.

Congress next passed an income tax in 1894, during a depression that ate up the budget surplus. President Grover Cleveland, who said he opposed the tax, let it become law without his signature. The law imposed a 2 percent tax on “gains, profits and incomes” over $4,000 during a five-year period. Few people would have paid it — and it had a short life, because it was successfully challenged by a bank stockholder, Charles Pollock, who objected that taxation of dividend income as written in the law was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states. His landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), paved the way for the Sixteenth Amendment.


Pollock and the Supreme Court

To cut to the chase, the Supreme Court struck down the unapportioned tax. This has led people to conclude that the Court held income taxation itself unconstitutional. But, as we will see, the Court did not say that.

The case had to be argued twice. In the first instance, the Court declared most of the bill unconstitutional, but split 4-4 on the question of whether a tax on general income was also unconstitutional. (One justice was ill.) On rehearing, the Court voted 5-4 to affirm its earlier decision and to add that income taxation per se was not barred by the Constitution.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who has a classical-liberal reputation, is instructive. Recall our discussion from Part 1 that the Constitution distinguishes between direct taxes, such as a head, or poll, tax, and “Duties, Imposts and Excises,” presumably indirect taxes. Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states according to the census. Indirect taxes do not have to be apportioned, but must be uniform throughout the country. Recall also that from the beginning, there was no general agreement on precisely which taxes were direct and which were indirect. No less an authority on the Constitution than Fisher Ames said, “It was difficult to define whether a tax is direct or not.” Alexander Hamilton expressed similar uncertainty.

The 1894 tax was comprehensive, which led the Court to consider the nature of the tax as it affected different sources of income. Taking the two rulings together, the Court concluded that a general tax on income, being indirect, was constitutional without apportionment among the states, but that a tax on income from real and personal property, being indistinguishable from a tax on the property itself, was direct taxation and thus required apportionment. Regarding the second point, the Court held,

[Can] it be properly held that the constitution, taken in its plain and obvious sense, and with due regard to the circumstances attending the formation of the government, authorizes a general unapportioned tax on the products of the farm and the rents of real estate, although imposed merely because of ownership, and with no possible means of escape from payment, as belonging to a totally different class from that which includes the property from whence the income proceeds?

... Nor can we perceive any ground why the same reasoning does not apply to capital in personalty held for the purpose of income, or ordinarily yielding income, and to the income therefrom.
Thus the Court said that some taxes on income, depending on the source from which it derives, are direct taxes requiring apportionment. This did not mean that all income taxes were in that category. Determining whether a given tax is direct requires an examination of the income’s source.

As to taxation of other income, the Court said it had not commented on so much of it [the law] as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such
.
In other words, a general income tax is an excise (indirect) tax and does not require apportionment. “[There] is no question as to the validity of this act except [the sections on real and personal property].” Thus the tax on wages, salaries, and profits was held to be constitutional. But this created a problem. If the provisions that taxed income from real estate and securities were stricken, the Court said, this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress.

Thus, concluded the Court, “[The] scheme must be considered as a whole.” The entire act was stricken. This is what leads people to believe that income taxation in general was voided, but as we’ve seen, that is not the case.

The Court stressed that it was not its job to say whether an income tax was desirable. Nevertheless, it reminded the county that “the instrument [Constitution] defines the way for its amendment.”

To summarize, the Pollock Court did not hold general income taxation unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. It acknowledged that in the United States income taxation was regarded as indirect and not subject to the apportionment rule. All that it found unconstitutional was unapportioned taxation of the income from real estate, stocks, and bonds on grounds that to tax such income was to tax the property itself, hence making the tax direct and in need of apportionment.

Chocolate Hog
01-26-2010, 03:24 PM
lol Ron Paul is ignorant whats that make Barack Obama?

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 03:25 PM
If they win the grant. Money typically comes from their county or community.

I think you are confused. Most of their grants come from the Feds.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/fire_department_resources.htm

For example our local sheriff's dept. is building a new jail some from bonds and other money from state and federal funding

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:26 PM
A consumption tax. If it could fund everything we need without ****ing the little guy in the ass (to put it bluntly), I might be for it.

Yea, unfortunately it does fuck the little guy in the ass.

orange
01-26-2010, 03:28 PM
lol Ron Paul is ignorant whats that make Barack Obama?

President?

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 03:29 PM
Yea, unfortunately it does **** the little guy in the ass.

I don't claim to know much about it. You could be right though.

Chocolate Hog
01-26-2010, 03:31 PM
President with no understanding of economics?

This.

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't claim to know much about it. You could be right though.

A national sales tax is regressive and unduly burdens lower income earners by placing a much larger % of the nation's tax burden on them. Lower income earners end up paying a much higher % of their income as tax than do the wealthy.

Donger
01-26-2010, 03:33 PM
A national sales tax is regressive and unduly burdens lower income earners by placing a much larger % of the nation's tax burden on them. Lower income earners end up paying a much higher % of their income as tax than do the wealthy.

So, basically, it's okay to anally-violate "the rich" because they have more money, but anally-violating "the poor" is wrong?

Taco John
01-26-2010, 03:34 PM
Yea, unfortunately it does **** the little guy in the ass.

How?

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:35 PM
So, basically, it's okay to anally-violate "the rich" because they have more money, but anally-violating "the poor" is wrong?

Seriously? The rich aren't being anally violated. We've (you and I) have had this discussion and I'm in no mood to rehash it with you.

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:36 PM
How?

A national sales tax is regressive and unduly burdens lower income earners by placing a much larger % of the nation's tax burden on them. Lower income earners end up paying a much higher % of their income as tax than do the wealthy.

.

Donger
01-26-2010, 03:37 PM
Seriously? The rich aren't being anally violated. We've (you and I) have had this discussion and I'm in no mood to rehash it with you.

Well, if you equate paying more taxes (both in total $$$ taken and as a percentage of income) to being anally-violated, then yes, "the rich" are being anally-violated.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 03:41 PM
A national sales tax is regressive and unduly burdens lower income earners by placing a much larger % of the nation's tax burden on them. Lower income earners end up paying a much higher % of their income as tax than do the wealthy.

That's irrelevant and arbitrary. In a consumption tax model, income is irrelevant. Consumption is what is taxed, not income. Income is completely thrown out the picture and replaced by consumption. It doesn't matter what their income is, it matters what they consume.

This is a much fairer model. Not that I favor a national sales tax, but it's preferable to the theft that is income tax.

morphius
01-26-2010, 03:41 PM
.
Depends what you tax and how much you tax it.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 03:43 PM
If I earn more money than my neighbor, and we consume the exact same amount, why is it my moral imperative to have more of my money confiscated from government than he does?

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 03:49 PM
Well, if you equate paying more taxes (both in total $$$ taken and as a percentage of income) to being anally-violated, then yes, "the rich" are being anally-violated.

Hasn't Warren Buffett answered the second item.

Especially once you factor in that most of "the rich" get the benefit of the phase out of social security taxes, the lower capital gains tax rate, etc? Total $$ taken is usually a "yes", but percentage of income is normally no, when all facets of income are included.

Obviously there are a number of people who are in between rich and poor who pay mor ein taxes because they're not making enough to get the phase outs or don't have cap gains income, but you said "the rich", so I'm just focusing on that.

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:49 PM
Well, if you equate paying more taxes (both in total $$$ taken and as a percentage of income) to being anally-violated, then yes, "the rich" are being anally-violated.

Well, how about we stay in the real world and not pull a BEP/TJ and make up definitions and look at the tax levels through history and their different structures. Fact of the matter is, even when the bush cuts expire, we are a lows in terms of taxation. I don't equate that with being anally violated.

Beyond that WTF IS THE DEAL WITH THE RW'S OBSESSION WITH ASSHOLES AND PENIS?

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 03:49 PM
If I earn more money than my neighbor, and we consume the exact same amount, why is it my moral imperative to have more of my money confiscated from government than he does?

It's not "your moral imperative". It's your "obligation under the law".

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:50 PM
That's irrelevant and arbitrary. In a consumption tax model, income is irrelevant. Consumption is what is taxed, not income. Income is completely thrown out the picture and replaced by consumption. It doesn't matter what their income is, it matters what they consume.

This is a much fairer model. Not that I favor a national sales tax, but it's preferable to the theft that is income tax.

It is a regressive tax. The poor pay a much higher % of their income to tax than the rich. That isn't a more fair model by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, Adam Smith has already covered this.

Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[16]

Dallas Chief
01-26-2010, 03:52 PM
A national sales tax is regressive and unduly burdens lower income earners by placing a much larger % of the nation's tax burden on them. Lower income earners end up paying a much higher % of their income as tax than do the wealthy.

So you are saying that everyone shouldn't have to kick in an equal and fair share of their income, no matter how much they make? How very Progressive of you.

How is someone making $40k/yr paying 15% of their income different on a percentage basis different than someone making $140k/yr paying 15% of their income? Sure the dollar amounts are different. The guy making $140k per year actually pays more dollars in taxes though- 3.5 times more dollars. I do agree that the $6k the guy making only $40k pays in taxes would be more impactful to him overall than the $21k the guy making $140k pays. There is a solution for that though. I think some folks call it the American Way.

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:53 PM
So you are saying that everyone shouldn't have to kick in an equal and fair share of their income, no matter how much they make? How very Progressive of you.

How is someone making $40k/yr paying 15% of their income different on a percentage basis different than someone making $140k/yr paying 15% of their income? Sure the dollar amounts are different. The guy making $140k per year actually pays more dollars in taxes though- 3.5 times more dollars. I do agree that the $6k the guy making only $40k pays in taxes would be more impactful to him overall than the $21k the guy making $140k pays. There is a solution for that though. I think some folks call it the American Way.

I said no such thing. I'm not in favor of a flat tax either.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 03:54 PM
There are a lot of legitimate federal law enforcement agencies. FBI, CIA, Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marshals, Drug Enforcement agents, etc.

I said "police/fire", and meant LOCAL. I'm nto talking about federal law enforcement agencies.

I don't see why the feds should be contributing $$ to ensure that the fire department in Whereverville gets a new fire truck or fire house.

Donger
01-26-2010, 03:56 PM
Well, how about we stay in the real world and not pull a BEP/TJ and make up definitions and look at the tax levels through history and their different structures. Fact of the matter is, even when the bush cuts expire, we are a lows in terms of taxation. I don't equate that with being anally violated.

Beyond that WTF IS THE DEAL WITH THE RW'S OBSESSION WITH ASSHOLES AND PENIS?

I'm not sure what you mean with the first paragraph. I agree that folks like Buffet do pay a lower percentage of their total income compared to say his secretary, but that is because of the way his income is structured. How many of even "the rich" have the vast majority of their income from sources like that? He gets a salary of $100,000 but reports income of ~$50 million?

That being said, please let's not pretend that "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" already. They do.

Regarding your second paragraph, you may note that Cannibal brough up ass-f*cking, not me.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 03:57 PM
There is a solution for that though. I think some folks call it the American Way.

Since that tax code has been progressive for 60 or 80 years or whatever, I think your definition of the American Way:

1. doesn't match current reality;

2. hasn't matched current reality in living memory;

3. reflects nothing but your own opinion; and

4. doesn't reflect the opinion of a majority of Congressmen and the President since before WWII.

Nice try though.

KC native
01-26-2010, 03:59 PM
I'm not sure what you mean with the first paragraph. I agree that folks like Buffet do pay a lower percentage of their total income compared to say his secretary, but that is because of the way his income is structured. How many of even "the rich" have the vast majority of their income from sources like that? He gets a salary of $100,000 but reports income of ~$50 million?

That being said, please let's not pretend that "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" already. They do.

Regarding your second paragraph, you may note that Cannibal brough up ass-f*cking, not me.

Quite a few. His income comes from his ownership stake in Berkshire. The wealthy tend to have large portfolios which drive most of their income.

And I apologize for attributing that to you however the question still stands.

orange
01-26-2010, 04:01 PM
How about a little game of "Guess the author?"

[I was asked by a journalist about the issue of alternative means of taxation: income tax or consumption tax. Here is my answer.]

The tax shift is one of the great games of government. In the game, the government uses the prospect of lowering one tax in order to buy support for raising another. The proposal to move from an income tax to a consumption tax is a good example of the game.

The essential key to understanding the trick is to realize that the government wants money and is going to get it one way or another. Zig zagging from one method to another does not change the reality. But it can fool the gullible. And it can raise a lot of money from affected groups during the transition period.

One helpful way to understand this is to think of a robber who promises to stop coming through your front door if you promise to leave the back door open. So it is with the state that promises to stop taxing your income if you let it tax your consumption. The issue is not the method; it is the amount.

The case for the consumption over the income tax rests on these essential claims:

1. The consumption tax is at least voluntary. Actually, it is just as coercive as any tax. Under the income tax, if I earn income and don't pay the tax, I can be fined and jailed. Under the consumption tax, if I consume a taxed item and don't pay the tax, I get fined and jailed.

It's true that I can choose not to consume that item. Similarly under the income tax, I can choose not to earn income. Nothing is voluntary if I am not permitted to exempt myself. There is no such thing as a voluntary tax. If there were, it would be called something else.

2. The consumption tax doesn't tax production. Yes it does. Businesses don't set their own prices, which is why they cannot simply pass on the consumption tax to the consumer. If they could raise their prices without affecting their profits, they would have already done so. Imposing a new tax new on a business, all other things being equal, the business will have to absorb the cost of that consumer tax into its own operations. In this way, the consumption tax is a tax on production, wages, research, investment, and every other aspect of economic life.

3. The consumption tax is easier to collect. Assuming this to be true, why is this necessarily a good thing? A tax that is hard to collect suggests that it less tempting to raise. What's more, a consumption tax might be easy to collect at 1%. But to replace the federal tax with a national consumption tax would require a tax approaching 20%. This would throw markets into chaos, create an overnight black market in everything, and give a great excuse for massive despotism and mandatory record keeping.

4. The consumption tax doesn't tax savings. Generally this is true. But the government should not be in the business of prodding us into a particular pattern of saving and consumption. It should leave that up to us. Saving is great to the extent it reflects individual preferences. Consumption is great in the same way. But there is no way to know a priori what the right mix should be. And think of this: the degree to which the consumption tax discourages consumption is the same degree to which it does not raise revenue. How does the tax-hungry state deal with that paradox?

5. The consumption tax, whatever its problems, is at least not progressive. Far too much is made of the flat versus progressivity issue. Think of it this way. Would you rather pay a flat 40% tax, or finagle your way through a system with 20 different rates ranging from 1% to 39% (all else being equal)? If you knew that you would pay less under a progressive system, that is the one you would favor.

The champions of the consumption tax, particularly those who claim to support free markets, need to redirect their energies, away from the method of taxation to its level. They need to adopt the general principle that whatever the existing tax, it should be lower. Going back to the robber analogy, the ideal system would leave every door and window bolted down.

morphius
01-26-2010, 04:03 PM
Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[16]

Which is why I said you don't tax food. There are all kinds of things you could do with sales and property taxes so that they poor pay less, it isn't like it has to be a flat property tax.

KC native
01-26-2010, 04:06 PM
Which is why I said you don't tax food. There are all kinds of things you could do with sales and property taxes so that they poor pay less, it isn't like it has to be a flat property tax.

Then you impose a massive compliance program. The income tax is less costly to levy and simpler to understand. That being said our tax code could use a major overhaul. If loopholes were eliminated and the tax code was a little more common sense then I believe you could have lower rates across the board. It should still be a progressive tax schedule though.

Royal Fanatic
01-26-2010, 04:08 PM
How about a little game of "Guess the author?"

That sounds like something Lew Rockwell would write.

orange
01-26-2010, 04:10 PM
That sounds like something Lew Rockwell would write.

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner!

morphius
01-26-2010, 04:22 PM
Then you impose a massive compliance program. The income tax is less costly to levy and simpler to understand. That being said our tax code could use a major overhaul. If loopholes were eliminated and the tax code was a little more common sense then I believe you could have lower rates across the board. It should still be a progressive tax schedule though.
We already have a massive compliance program and it is complicated enough that even getting an answer from someone at the IRS doesn't mean that it is right. A consumption tax doesn't even have to be that complicated to protect the poor.

KC native
01-26-2010, 04:25 PM
We already have a massive compliance program and it is complicated enough that even getting an answer from someone at the IRS doesn't mean that it is right. A consumption tax doesn't even have to be that complicated to protect the poor.

Then you end up with either a system of vouchers or some sort of monitoring system either way they become costly and a huge problem to implement and maintain.

The income tax, despite it's shortcomings, is one of the most efficient ways for the government to levy a progressive tax on the population.

Dallas Chief
01-26-2010, 05:20 PM
Since that tax code has been progressive for 60 or 80 years or whatever, I think your definition of the American Way:

1. doesn't match current reality;

2. hasn't matched current reality in living memory;

3. reflects nothing but your own opinion; and

4. doesn't reflect the opinion of a majority of Congressmen and the President since before WWII.

Nice try though.

Whether or not I agree that a flat tax is the way to go is irrelevant. I never said anybody supported that position. My point is that the American way is to work hard, or harder than you already are, to support your family and hopefully improve your standard of living. I was also arguing the point that on a percentage basis that 15% is 15% whether it 15% of $40k or 15% of $140k. Of course the dollar amounts are different. It takes from people an equal share of what they have earned. So in response-

1. You jumped the gun with your hyperbolic response.

2. My Grandmother would prove your living memory theory to be incorrect.

3. You assumed what my opinion was on the matter, and well, you know what happens to YOU when you assume things. You chose to grab a hold of the American Way thing and twist it into some kind of fair tax thing by me. I was simply stating that there are ways to get ahead in this world, most importantly by working hard and doing it yourself- i.e. the American Way.

4. What does the opinion of a majority of Congressmen and the President since before WWII have to do with creating a better, more equitable way to do anything? Since when have they ever been known to do such a thing?

Nice try though!:D

Taco John
01-26-2010, 05:49 PM
It's not "your moral imperative". It's your "obligation under the law".

Why do you think that it's ok to discriminate against the rich just for the fact that they're rich?

Why is that any more valid than discriminating against anyone else? Why can't two individuals be treated the same way regardless of what their age, income, religion, or sex?

The law should treat two men equally. It should not endeavor to draw arbitrary imbalances between them, and then seek to right those imaginary imbalances through force. If force is going to be applied, it should apply to each individual equally without regard to how much they produce or do not produce.

Government should endeavor to treat all men equally under the law. To fail this is immoral and produces corruption as the market forces attempt to re-balance the inequality that the human actors are experiencing.

Everyone should be treated equally and consistently under the law. Otherwise, the law is unjust.

Donger
01-26-2010, 05:53 PM
Quite a few. His income comes from his ownership stake in Berkshire. The wealthy tend to have large portfolios which drive most of their income.

And I apologize for attributing that to you however the question still stands.

And what percentage of the taxpayers do they constitute? I'd be stunned if it's even 1%

Taco John
01-26-2010, 05:54 PM
Also, Adam Smith has already covered this.

I can't help it if Adam Smith made arbitrary rationalizations to sell his theory. God bless the man, but he was wrong about recognizing the inequality of treat people differently based on their class status, and permit it as reasonable. There's nothing reasonable about treating any two individuals differently due to their class status. The rich are not societies slaves. They are individuals, and every individual should be treated equally under the law without regard to class or status.

Norman Einstein
01-26-2010, 05:55 PM
I guarantee the number paid firefighters vastly outnumbers the number of volunteer firefighters.

Got a link to back up your guarantee?

Iowanian
01-26-2010, 06:27 PM
I have a question for you. Is it fun to follow me around the bb and neg rep me for no reason? I'm honestly curious. You rep me at twice the rate that anyone else does. It seems as though you have a certain stalker-like obsession with my posts. Are you trying to say you want to come out of the closet?

Ironic.

Yea, unfortunately it does **** the little guy in the ass. same thread, similar subject for you.

This certainly has ALOT to do with the post you quoted and this conversation on federal taxes. Kind of like the pile of those red dots from unrelated, irrelevant posts for the past 6 months or so. You're pretty concerned about my interest in cock and balls and I hate to let you down anything but easy, but I'm just not into playing tummy sticks. do whatever floats your boat.

** I went and counted, I have 21 red dots since June, you are responsible for 17-18 of those.

Iowanian
01-26-2010, 06:33 PM
You guys are conflating "federal income taxes" with "local taxes."


Most rural areas and small towns(say under 5,000) are almost all volunteer FD.

The equipment, trucks, gear et al are almost entirely funded by county and local govt. The other funding sources are donations from people whom have used the services of the FD and occasional grant funding, some of which comes from FEMA or Fed, but not a big percentage.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 06:35 PM
I can't help it if Adam Smith made arbitrary rationalizations to sell his theory. God bless the man, but he was wrong about recognizing the inequality of treat people differently based on their class status, and permit it as reasonable. There's nothing reasonable about treating any two individuals differently due to their class status. The rich are not societies slaves. They are individuals, and every individual should be treated equally under the law without regard to class or status.

But you do believe states can treat people differently based on their class or status, right?

If we wanted total equality, we could have a law that says everyone can only make $10 an hour whether you are an executive or an assembler. Currently, there is no law saying that. Where's the justice? Obviously, justice allows some degree of inequality.

morphius
01-26-2010, 06:52 PM
Then you end up with either a system of vouchers or some sort of monitoring system either way they become costly and a huge problem to implement and maintain.

The income tax, despite it's shortcomings, is one of the most efficient ways for the government to levy a progressive tax on the population.
We end up with a smaller watching unit then the current 100,000 employee's the IRS has now and there isn't a need for vouchers if you are not taxing food and necessities.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 07:31 PM
But you do believe states can treat people differently based on their class or status, right?

How do you figure?


If we wanted total equality, we could have a law that says everyone can only make $10 an hour whether you are an executive or an assembler. Currently, there is no law saying that. Where's the justice? Obviously, justice allows some degree of inequality.

I don't know what you're reaching for here. :doh!:

Bearcat2005
01-26-2010, 07:35 PM
But you do believe states can treat people differently based on their class or status, right?

If we wanted total equality, we could have a law that says everyone can only make $10 an hour whether you are an executive or an assembler. Currently, there is no law saying that. Where's the justice? Obviously, justice allows some degree of inequality.

Justice allows a degree of inequality? What is just about that statement? Who decides what degree of inequality is acceptable and not? I bet the ayatollah has the same logic.

BTW your poor comparison has little to do with TJ's comments. Govt. imposes taxation by coercion, the collective market decides what an individuals's pay will be, based on supply of labor and demand for such, allowing much more choices than the former.

Bearcat2005
01-26-2010, 07:38 PM
How do you figure?




I don't know what you're reaching for here. :doh!:

I just want to know, under this system who will be the do-gooders making these choices concerning "the degree of justice" one must attain.

Saul Good
01-26-2010, 07:44 PM
I guarantee the number paid firefighters vastly outnumbers the number of volunteer firefighters.

I guarantee your guarantees are worthless.

Bearcat2005
01-26-2010, 07:49 PM
I guarantee your guarantees are worthless.

I can take a dump in a box and mark it guarantee, I have spare time.
http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/uploaded_images/tommy-725440.jpg

Saul Good
01-26-2010, 07:53 PM
Then you impose a massive compliance program. The income tax is less costly to levy and simpler to understand. That being said our tax code could use a major overhaul. If loopholes were eliminated and the tax code was a little more common sense then I believe you could have lower rates across the board. It should still be a progressive tax schedule though.

There's a better way to do this. You give every taxpayer a prebate of a certain amount of money each year. Let's say that you decide that taxes shouldn't be collected on the first $20,000 of income and that we need about 25% of total money spent in excess of $20,000 in taxes to make the system work.

Everyone gets a prebate of $4,000. That goes for people who don't earn enough to spend $20,000, and it goes for people who spend $20,000,000. Everything is then taxed at 25%. It takes next to nothing to administer. There are no loopholes. There is no IRS. There is no incentive to hide money overseas.

Bearcat2005
01-26-2010, 07:57 PM
There's a better way to do this. You give every taxpayer a prebate of a certain amount of money each year. Let's say that you decide that taxes shouldn't be collected on the first $20,000 of income and that we need about 25% of total money spent in excess of $20,000 in taxes to make the system work.

Everyone gets a prebate of $4,000. That goes for people who don't earn enough to spend $20,000, and it goes for people who spend $20,000,000. Everything is then taxed at 25%. It takes next to nothing to administer. There are no loopholes. There is no IRS. There is no incentive to hide money overseas.

Anything to lower the rates and simplify the code I would be for.

Saul Good
01-26-2010, 08:00 PM
Anything to lower the rates and simplify the code I would be for.

It wouldn't necessarily lower the rates, but it would simplify the code and save billions in administrative costs. It would tax consumption without taxing production. Imagine that.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't spend your money. If you make it rain, pay the man.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 08:00 PM
Got a link to back up your guarantee?

Read the thread.

Bearcat2005
01-26-2010, 08:02 PM
It wouldn't necessarily lower the rates, but it would simplify the code and save billions in administrative costs. It would tax consumption without taxing production. Imagine that.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't spend your money. If you make it rain, pay the man.

Sure it would lower the rates, imagine what we could do with the savings from that, im all about increasing our economic competitiveness on the global market. :D

Norman Einstein
01-26-2010, 08:02 PM
Read the thread.

I didn't think you had any backup for your guarantee.

notorious
01-26-2010, 10:17 PM
Straight Sales Tax.

1. It would allow people to actually save money before the Government gets their slimey hands on it.

2. It would allow the people in debt to get out easier by keeping their money. Example: Students coming out of college would have access to 100% of their income to pay off student loans.

3. Only people making purchases would be taxed. The larger the purchase, the more you pay.

4. Tax Fraud would would be almost impossible to get away with.

This is just a short list of positives that would come from the fair tax.

Edit: I should have read all of the thread since you guys have already covered this topic :)


Politicians will never go for it, though. It takes away a lot of their power.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 11:55 PM
How do you figure?

My understanding is that you are in favor of a heightened notion of states' rights. So if a state wanted to impose slavery (seen by the Confederacy), that was reasonable. The Bill of Rights, for the true republican as I see it, is not incorporating for the states, which have a large degree of sovereignty and room for their own experiments (even near socialism).

Taco John
01-27-2010, 12:07 AM
My understanding is that you are in favor of a heightened notion of states' rights. So if a state wanted to impose slavery (seen by the Confederacy), that was reasonable. The Bill of Rights, for the true republican as I see it, is not incorporating for the states, which have a large degree of sovereignty and room for their own experiments (even near socialism).

Slavery is not reasonable. It violates liberty and the spirit of equal under the law.

That said, we didn't need to go to war over it. Not that the civil war was fought over slavery, despite the public school version of it that pretends that's what it was all about.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 12:11 AM
Slavery is not reasonable. It violates liberty and the spirit of equal under the law.

Spirit of equal under the law? Where was that pre-1865? Matter of fact, where is equal under the law a mandate for the states today?

Bearcat2005
01-27-2010, 12:20 AM
Spirit of equal under the law? Where was that pre-1865? Matter of fact, where is equal under the law a mandate for the states today?

You can start with the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law), part of the progression from a illiberal democracy to a liberal one.

If I understand your question correctly....

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 12:26 AM
You can start with the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law), part of the progression from a illiberal democracy to a liberal one.

If I understand your question correctly....

Of course, I believe that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights, completely. The Supreme Court, and many Americans, did not believe it even did so selectively until the late 1930s and moreso in the 1960s. Still today there are some things not considered incorporated by the Bill of Rights to states. I think, for one, gun ownership.

Bearcat2005
01-27-2010, 12:32 AM
Of course, I believe that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights, completely. The Supreme Court, and many Americans, did not believe it even did so selectively until the late 1930s and moreso in the 1960s. Still today there are some things not considered incorporated by the Bill of Rights to states. I think, for one, gun ownership.

You say that there are still somethings not considered incorporated by the bill of rights to the states and follow that with the words "I think".......

What in your view is not considered? Seems subjective to me.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 12:37 AM
You say that there are still somethings not considered incorporated by the bill of rights to the states and follow that with the words "I think".......

What in your view is not considered? Seems subjective to me.

Quartering soldiers definitely isn't.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 12:39 AM
Provisions the Court has not incorporated: 2nd Amendment, keep and bear arms, 3rd Amendment, against quartering soldiers, 5th Amendment, right to a grand jury hearing, 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and 8th Amendment, right against excessive bail and fine.

Norman Einstein
01-27-2010, 05:06 AM
Provisions the Court has not incorporated: 2nd Amendment, keep and bear arms, 3rd Amendment, against quartering soldiers, 5th Amendment, right to a grand jury hearing, 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and 8th Amendment, right against excessive bail and fine.

You are aware that political science classes and life are two completely different concepts, one if the liberal belief of what is written and the other is the actual enactment of issues? Right? Ya think?

ILChief
01-27-2010, 06:34 AM
now THIS is unicorn and rainbow stuff

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 07:46 AM
Slavery is not reasonable. It violates liberty and the spirit of equal under the law.

That said, we didn't need to go to war over it. Not that the civil war was fought over slavery, despite the public school version of it that pretends that's what it was all about.

Discussed ad nauseum. Slavery was the 800 pound gorilla in the room adn teh fundamental reason the North and South couldn't and didn't get along pre-war.

And slavery wasn't going to magically end on its own. The entire southern social and economic system was built upon it. That's why they wanted to continually expand upon it.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 07:47 AM
You can start with the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law), part of the progression from a illiberal democracy to a liberal one.

If I understand your question correctly....

True, but the 14th amendment was only passed BECAUSE of the Civil War. No Civil War, no 14th amendment, and no equal protection clause.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 07:50 AM
You are aware that political science classes and life are two completely different concepts, one if the liberal belief of what is written and the other is the actual enactment of issues? Right? Ya think?

WTF are you talking about? He is correct that some provisions of the Bill of Rights have been held NOT to apply to the states. I didn't cross-check his list, and I haven't had to care about any of that stuff since law school, but I assume he looked it up and its comprehensive.

And if the Bill of Rights hasn't been read to apply to the states through the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, then the states don't need to care about that particular provision of the bill of rights.

It's only during the liberal Warren Court (1960s, mostly) that the various provisions of the Bill of Rights were interpreted by the SC to apply to the states. Prior to that, the states didn't need to care a damn bit about anyone's right against self-incrimination, or against unreasonable search and seizure. That stuff only applied to federal law enforcement agencies, not your local police department.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 08:21 AM
Slavery is not reasonable. It violates liberty and the spirit of equal under the law.

That said, we didn't need to go to war over it. Not that the civil war was fought over slavery, despite the public school version of it that pretends that's what it was all about.

Yes, I did appreciate the libertarian/Southern denial propaganda piece you have to insert that says slavery was not a major underlying cause of the Civil War when all objective historical study leads to it being perhaps the major underlying cause of it. Keep fighting those public schools, though. Just don't forget to read your Thucydides.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 08:22 AM
You are aware that political science classes and life are two completely different concepts, one if the liberal belief of what is written and the other is the actual enactment of issues? Right? Ya think?

You have no idea what you're dealing with.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 08:56 AM
I'm no fan of taxes, but I am under no delusion that we could have a 4-branch military, roads, justice system, prison system (for violent offenders), social security, unemployment insurance, science research, medicare for seniors, police and fire fighters etc., etc., without them. They are a necessary evil for an advanced country such as ours.

No their not all necessary to be advanced. We advanced rapidly without them and people survived. Anyhow, in 1988 Ron Paul said that if we just ended our massive bases and FP that alone could do away with the income tax without touching a single social or welfare program.

Bearcat2005
01-27-2010, 08:58 AM
Provisions the Court has not incorporated: 2nd Amendment, keep and bear arms, 3rd Amendment, against quartering soldiers, 5th Amendment, right to a grand jury hearing, 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and 8th Amendment, right against excessive bail and fine.

Your speaking of the incorporation of the bill of rights doctrine, I imagine the Privileges or Immunities Clause addresses these issues.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 09:01 AM
Your speaking of the incorporation of the bill of rights doctrine, I imagine the Privileges or Immunities Clause addresses these issues.

Eh? If Amendment X of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then it doesn't apply to ALL states, in which case the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states are the same.

Not sure what your argument is here, but either you've got it wrong or I'm missing what you're trying to say.

Bearcat2005
01-27-2010, 09:01 AM
True, but the 14th amendment was only passed BECAUSE of the Civil War. No Civil War, no 14th amendment, and no equal protection clause.

You understand also that amendments require 3/4 of the states support for ratification. The majority of states had some autonomy in the situation.

Bearcat2005
01-27-2010, 09:02 AM
Eh? If Amendment X of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then it doesn't apply to ALL states, in which case the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states are the same.

Not sure what your argument is here, but either you've got it wrong or I'm missing what you're trying to say.

I think your missing what I was trying to convey.

Bearcat2005
01-27-2010, 09:03 AM
You are aware that political science classes and life are two completely different concepts, one if the liberal belief of what is written and the other is the actual enactment of issues? Right? Ya think?

? I think you are reffering to an individual's interpretation of events as opposed to information that may counter such?
BTW, not all poly sci professors, believe it or not are liberal, it may seems that way but I heard of one who wasn't ......... once :)

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:06 AM
Your speaking of the incorporation of the bill of rights doctrine, I imagine the Privileges or Immunities Clause addresses these issues.

Exactly! The 14th says nothing about the unalienable rights which already existed BEFORE govt. The BoRs restrains the Federal govtónot the states. The 14th Amendment was written for black after the Civil War. Those pushing promised that all the abuses we see today by expanding the 14th into incorporation, swore up and down this would never happen. That and it was not properly ratified. But Jenson just loves the consolidate power into one massive central govt.

Cannibal
01-27-2010, 09:06 AM
No their not all necessary to be advanced. We advanced rapidly without them and people survived. Anyhow, in 1988 Ron Paul said that if we just ended our massive bases and FP that alone could do away with the income tax without touching a single social or welfare program.

I think Ron Paul is wrong. I do not believe ending our foreign policy would be enough to keep the other programs and systems of our country. You'll have to prove that one.

BTW, try running for Congress on a platform that you are going to end SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare and Food Stamps. Let me know how it turns out.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:10 AM
I think Ron Paul is wrong. I do not believe ending our foreign policy would be enough to keep the other programs and systems of our country. You'll have to prove that one.
That's why I said in 1988. That meant then. It shows how much spending went on then due to the Cold War. It's on You Tube if you want to google the topic.

Consider these facts: Our govt is not funded by income taxes alone. Only a third of it is. The rest is funded through borrowing ( from the Federal Reserve which makes it easier to borrow) and the remainder through inflation as the govt pays back in cheaper dollars meanwhile it buys less for us. It's a stealth tax. If our govt was funded with taxes alone there would have already been a revolution in this country.

That proves it for me.

BTW, try running for Congress on a platform that you are going to end SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare and Food Stamps. Let me know how it turns out.
That''s called a strawman. It wasn't my argument at all.

Cannibal
01-27-2010, 09:11 AM
That's why I said in 1988. That meant then. It shows how much spending went on then due to the Cold War. It's on You Tube if you want to google the topic.

Consider these facts: Our govt is not funded by income taxes alone. Only a third of it is. The rest is funded through borrowing ( from the Federal Reserve which makes it easier to borrow) and the remainder through inflation as the govt pays back in cheaper dollars meanwhile it buys less for us. It's a stealth tax. If our govt was funded with taxes alone there would have already been a revolution in this country.

That proves it for me.


That''s called a strawman. It wasn't my argument at all.

It doesn't for me.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 09:29 AM
I'm no fan of taxes, but I am under no delusion that we could have a 4-branch military, roads, justice system, prison system (for violent offenders), social security, unemployment insurance, science research, medicare for seniors, police and fire fighters etc., etc., without them. They are a necessary evil for an advanced country such as ours.

Military and roads -- sure we could; would still bring in trillions in gross receipts without the income tax.

Justice and prison system -- State issue

Social Security -- Good, scrap that MFing sinkhole (besides, that's FICA anyway)

Unemployment insurance -- Paid for by corporate taxes anyway

Science research -- The private sector will and has stepped up here

Medicare for seniors -- Already largely state funded

Police, firefighters -- State funded


Next.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 09:36 AM
You understand also that amendments require 3/4 of the states support for ratification. The majority of states had some autonomy in the situation.

Yeah, I do understand that. I'm not sure what they has to do with anything, however. At the time the 14th amendment was passed, I don't think many states/people were focused on the implications of "equal rights" meaning that the Bill of Rights clauses would be grafted onto the states themselves. That only came about quite a while later.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 09:42 AM
That proves it for me.

Let's just say that it's more or less my belief that your predilictions are such that if a drunken moron posted something you were inclined to believe in on some Ron Paul fansite somewhere, you'd take that as "proof" of just about anything he had to say.

The "Lincoln rapist" thing is just one of many examples of this.

KC native
01-27-2010, 09:42 AM
Let's just say that it's more or less my belief that your predilictions are such that if a drunken moron posted something you were inclined to believe in on some Ron Paul fansite somewhere, you'd take that as "proof" of just about anything he had to say.

The "Lincoln rapist" thing is just one of many examples of this.

ROFL QFT